• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Ryzen "2" ?

humbug said:
From a 4790K i don't know, i went from a 4.5Ghz 4690K to what you see in my signature and its anything from the same to just about twice the performance, any stuttering i did get on the 4690K is now gone.

Having said that the 4690K didn't have SMT, yours does.
Click to expand...

Fair, amigo :p

Well, now we must decide what the safe quantity of logical processors is in order to avoid any chance of stuttering.
I'd recommend anything over 4-core/8-thread as the bare minimum for a gaming machine, without worries about lags and stutters.
 
BigV said:
blah
I don't know what to do. I have an 8700k & Motherboard unopened from that well known rainforest supplier, still within the return window. I was actually going to start my build today.

But I've seen several benchmarks now showing the difference in performance in games I play is so small it would make almost no difference. No need to worry about delids and so on, plus the chance to upgrade again later if I want without changing platform.

I am seriously tempted to return them and order a 2700x instead. I'm pretty sure the cooler I bought is compatible with AM4 as well. I know the 2700x comes with a cooler but the reviews I've seen are suggesting it is a bit noisy and I want a quiet build.
Click to expand...

Most of those bench's are flawed so first bear that in mind.

The only relevant scores are in my opinion ryzen 2 with its goodies enabled (PE on) against an 8700k at 4.8-5ghz.

With that said you obviously brought an i7 because you value threaded performance, else you would have got an i5 right, and I think the best buy for threaded performance at the moment is a ryzen 2. Probably a 2600x if its just for gaming or 2700x if you do media work.
 
Last edited:
chrcoluk said:
right so the reason its not enabled by default is it makes the chips exceed TDP and as such be "out of spec". So the tests with this enabled vs intel chips in "stock" config are not stock vs stock after all and now we know why the option is disabled by default, its like the MCE option in the ASUS intel bios which would put 4 cores at 4.7 ghz on 8700ks but the reviews were done with 8700ks at 4.4 (MCE disabled).
Click to expand...

It's not the only performance boosting feature motherboards have, there's also Core Performance Boost and Performance Bias on ASUS boards, and now they relabeled PBO to Performance Enhancement, which I'm not sure is disabled by default.
I don't really blame AMD for this, similar for Intel with MCE, it's all down to motherboard makers and them wanting to one up the others. Do you remember all of the reviews that were pointing out Skylake-X using way more than its TDP should allow for? That was also 100% down to motherboards and you can safely discount any reviewers that encountered that issue as not doing their job properly (albeit I recall some boards didn't have options to enforce TDP limits... MSI).
Either way proper reviewers like Gamers Nexus or Tech Report will all disable these little boosts when reviewing.
 
AndreiD said:
It's not the only performance boosting feature motherboards have, there's also Core Performance Boost and Performance Bias on ASUS boards, and now they relabeled PBO to Performance Enhancement, which I'm not sure is disabled by default.
I don't really blame AMD for this, similar for Intel with MCE, it's all down to motherboard makers and them wanting to one up the others. Do you remember all of the reviews that were pointing out Skylake-X using way more than its TDP should allow for? That was also 100% down to motherboards and you can safely discount any reviewers that encountered that issue as not doing their job properly (albeit I recall some boards didn't have options to enforce TDP limits *MSI*)
Either way proper reviewers like Gamers Nexus or Tech Report will all disable these little boosts when reviewing.
Click to expand...

yes in affect they reviewing 2 products in one go, board and cpus.

cpu review guide probably requested stock vs stock.
board review guide probably requested those features enabled.
 
I am not sure you can label Precision boost the same as MCE..
Isnt MCE a motherboard enhancement where as PE is a chip level function built directly into the silicon.

Are there also MCE options in AMDs new motherboards?
Imho stock v stock should be PE on, all multicore enhancements off for both AMD and intel.
 
Apparently PE is a motherboard enhancement according to the last reply before mine.

Either way they both allow TDP to be exceeded so out of spec the cpu.

Its simple really, PE defaults to off, so stock is PE off.
PE exceeds TDP, so is not stock.
 
sideways14a said:
I am not sure you can label Precision boost the same as MCE..
Isnt MCE a motherboard enhancement where as PE is a chip level function built directly into the silicon.

Are there also MCE options in AMDs new motherboards?
Imho stock v stock should be PE on, all multicore enhancements off for both AMD and intel.
Click to expand...

According to The Stilt, PBO allows PPT to increase to around 140W, which is beyond what AMD advertise their 2700X as, so it's not exactly running 'stock' regardless of the implementation.
 
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-72#post-39391302
The "Precision Boost Override" feature available on 400-series motherboards allows increasing the physical limiters mentioned earlier. On SKUs belonging to the 105W TDP infrastructure group, the default limiters are following: PPT 141.75W, TDC 95A, EDC 140A and tJMax of 85°C (absolute, excl. offset).

When "Precision Boost Override" mode is enabled (AGESA default), PPT becomes essentially unrestricted (1000W), TDC is set to 114A and EDC to 168A. These limits can be customized by the ODM so that the new limits will comply with the electrical characteristics of the motherboard design in question.
Click to expand...

So the PBO implementation depends on the motherboard makers since they can define its limits. This definitely should be turned off by default, but that doesn't seem to always be the case.
If it's enabled by default in the AGESA then this is AMD to blame too.
 
PB and XFR are stock on the chip, PBO is Overdriving the boost beyond stock and is a board feature.
But yeah boosting still seems to be way above TDP.
 
If PBO is enabled by default in the AGESA then AMD should market their chip as 140W TDP, not 105W, imo.
And it should only result in better performance in highly multithreaded workloads. Either way, at least it's a documented 'feature' and a lot of reviewers have caught on to these little motherboard boosts.
 
AndreiD said:
If PBO is enabled by default in the AGESA then AMD should market their chip as 140W TDP, not 105W, imo.
And it should only result in better performance in highly multithreaded workloads. Either way, at least it's a documented 'feature' and a lot of reviewers have caught on to these little motherboard boosts.
Click to expand...

I don't think PBO is on default. Pretty sure every post I saw about it was telling people how to enable it.
 
prjwebb said:
PB and XFR are stock on the chip, PBO is Overdriving the boost beyond stock and is a board feature.
But yeah boosting still seems to be way above TDP.
Click to expand...

A k series chip has unlocked ratios "stock" on the chip, but they "out of spec" operational modes.

So PB and XFR not needing bios tricks to implement doesnt mean they stock in spec operational modes, if they were, they would be enabled out the box and not breach the cpu operating specs.
 
Yeah, but AMD bins the top 2 cores for 4.35Ghz (reason why all core overclocks can't reach the top Turbo), and the stock 105W TDP should be enough to allow those to boost to 4.35Ghz in most scenarios that need it.
The only scenarios that should be affected by PBO should be the multithreaded ones which can actually push the TDP limits.
 
prjwebb said:
I don't think PBO is on default. Pretty sure every post I saw about it was telling people how to enable it.
Click to expand...

Probably not on by default on some mobos, but the AGESA microcode AMD sends to ODMs has it enabled, with the default limit being 140W, as per The Stilt.
 
How is memory scaling and compatibility in zen+?

With Ryzen, Samsung b-die was pretty much necessary to run at 3200.

Can Ryzen+ run Hynix 3200cl16 Ram at 3200 cl16?

How does zen+ scale in games with faster memory?

Does 3600 bring a big FPS difference?


I am wondering since ram prices are still high, if it is worth it to spend more on b-die sticks or if some gskill ripjaws v 3200 cl16 Hynix ICs are enough.


Cheers
 
chrcoluk said:
A k series chip has unlocked ratios "stock" on the chip, but they "out of spec" operational modes.

So PB and XFR not needing bios tricks to implement doesnt mean they stock in spec operational modes, if they were, they would be enabled out the box and not breach the cpu operating specs.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing XFR, PB and PBO.
XFR and PB need no bios tricks to enable. They are stock out of the box and they boost the chip to certain frequencies depending on how many cores are being utilised. Less cores, high boosts.

PBO is the overdrive which lets you extend the limits of the boost. That is what requires the bios 'tricks'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom